The story of how Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to direct political and scientific focus on CO2 to ‘prove’ it was causing global warming is well documented. If you want a detailed account read my book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science or a simpler, abbreviated version for the non-scientist titled Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History. The books are unique because they integrate how the science was created to achieve the political agenda. Focus on the bad science was necessary, but once demonstrated, demands an explanation of the motive.

Consensus was a central theme to the political promotion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the start. Initially, it was the 6000+ representatives of the IPCC. Later, it became the manufactured percentages of 95 of Naomi Oreskes and 97 for John Cooke. However, there was another form of manufactured consensus that continues to influence public and political opinion. It is a more powerful form of consensus because it encompasses an appeal to authority. Not only do the ordinary people support the cause and claims but also those with standing, even though it is usually self-assigned. The two best examples used to promote the consensus of authority in the climate deception are the Nobel Prize, jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC and the openly declared support of scientific societies for the IPCC Reports.

I know that these are still major arguments used to support the claims of the IPCC because they are cited in most legal documents I receive and are quoted in almost every media interview I have ever done. In both cases, they make a mockery of all the Nobel awards even though in the case of Gore and the IPCC it was the Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee provide evidence of the phoniness of the entire exercise. First, they list their prize under the field of “humanitarian work, world organizing.” Then they justify it as a Peace Award as follows;

According to the IPCC, there is a real danger that the climate changes may also increase the danger of war and conflict, because they will place already scarce natural resources, not least drinking water, under greater pressure and put large population groups to flight from drought, flooding, and other extreme weather conditions.

As I read that, they are accepting the IPCC’s word for the danger. This is incredible and shows they did not do their homework or even if they did, failed to understand there is no empirical evidence to support the IPCC claims. It underlines how phony these awards and ripe for political exploitation.

According to the Nobel Committee, Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to rouse the public and the governments that action had to be taken to meet the climate challenge. “He is,” in the words of the Committee, “the great communicator”.

I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:

“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”

4. Martin Chamberlain, who, with equal skill, has adopted a very realistic position on the part of the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. There is thus no need to consider any analysis or definition of the word ‘political.’

The judge also ruled that

There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the “consensus” expressed in the IPCC reports.

He later lists nine errors, although, Lord Monckton showed there are many more. It is important to note that the Wikipedia entry on the trial works very hard to discredit Monckton because of his efforts to obtain funding for the working-class father of the child forced to submit to the biased presentation without proper balance, as the law required.

The question is why didn’t the Nobel Committee know about all this information? Obviously, they did no research and simply gave the prize as they were directed. Do they apply a similar laxity of investigation in any other discipline? The information given at the trial was publicly available because the major witness at the trial was the late Professor Bob Carter. Few people were more industrious and rigorous as he published extensively and traveled the world spreading the information. He was a contributor and reviewer of the monumental Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

As media do a victory lap over Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement, it seems a metaphysical certitude that few Americans are aware of the other 180 nominees for the award besides the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore.

For instance, meet Irena Sendler, a 97-year-old Polish woman who saved 2,500 Jewish children from certain death in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II.

Hadn’t heard of her? Well, don’t feel bad, for since the Nobel Committee announced the nominees in February, there have only been 107 reports about Mrs. Sendler being one of them. By contrast, Al Gore and “Nobel” have been mentioned in 2,912.

To put an even finer point on the astounding difference in media coverage, since the nominees were announced, Mrs. Sendler has been referred to in only six newscasts on television and radio, one by conservative Glenn Beck. Gore’s Nobel nomination was discussed in 249!

Well, how does Irena Sendler’s contribution to “Humanitarian work and world organizing” compare with Gore’s promotion of a falsely created scientific fraud?

Scientific Societies

In 2005 Brian May or Lord May (another undeserving award), President of the Royal Society gave an address speaking to his belief that a major function of the Society is to spread what it considered important. Here are two quotes from the address that explain why other scientific groups and societies around the world were used.

The remainder of the Address will survey some specific threats to tomorrow’s world, in the form of climate change, diminishing biological diversity, and new or re-emerging diseases. The increasingly deliberate internationalisation of scientific institutions, particularly in response to the above-noted problems, will be emphasised.

In what follows, I concentrate on three particular problems: climate change, biological diversity, infectious diseases. In each case, the problems are essentially global, not recognising the boundaries between human states. Correspondingly, the involvement of the scientific community – in basic understanding, in practical measures, and in policy recommendations – needs to transcend national boundaries.

The cachet of the Royal Society was sufficient to convince most scientific societies to support the claims of the IPCC. One society, the Russian Academy of Sciences under the recommendation of Yuri Izrael, Director of its Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, refused to participate. He was also Vice-chair of the IPCC and said after a visit to a cooling Antarctic

“Climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it.”

He also stated,

“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”

In most cases, the society accepted and promoted the IPCC support without consulting the members. When Emeritus Professor of physics, the late Hal Lewis discovered that the executive of the American Physical Society (APS) had given their support he resigned in a very public protest. As he wrote in his October 2010 resignation letter,

“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

If it is that obvious, why didn’t Lord May or members of the Royal Society see it? This granting of unwarranted awards to bolster credibility is a disgrace, but typical of why politics and politicians are held in such disdain. It is likely Al Gore had a great deal to do with it because he used the power of the Vice-Presidency in so many self-serving ways. Remember, Barack Obama also received a Peace Prize that puzzled even ardent supporters. Gore’s presence, influence and aggrandizement are everywhere throughout this entire climate deception story. As usual, people know these machinations occur but still have a hard time believing it.

Well, we’ve had both around for quite a long time, but in the arrogance of each new generation, there was apparently a consensus (pun intended) that this was all a long time in the past and that we’ve evolved far beyond it.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth provided an even further insight into the politics of the IPCC, when he noted in 2012, “There are too many researchers involved [in the IPCC process] who are not leading researchers–owing to the demands for new people, and national, geographic and gender equity.”*

I share Hal Lewis’ amazement and anger at how the APS rolled over for AGW. I still don’t know how that happened, though. What were (are) those people thinking?

I always thought physicists were the most hard-minded of people, by far the most resistant to pseudo-science, by far the most likely to scoff at nonsense. I could rely on them to keep straight the ship of rational thought. Not any more.

I share Hal Lewis’ amazement and anger at how the APS rolled over for AGW. I still don’t know how that happened, though. What were (are) those people thinking?

If you disbelieve the cliamte narrative, and believe that Al gore and chums created it for political reasons, that’s one thing. What the roll-over of all major institutions points to is massive pressure being applied at a very deep level.

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Did you know that power is more addictive than heroin? people with power rarely give it up voluntarily. They must be voted out or thrown out because most of the self-selecting sociopaths who enter politics don’t leave voluntarily. These UN people are power mad and will lie, cheat and steal (Trillions!) to keep that power – because they are literally insane in their quest for power.

Well egos and treating climate science like a religion certainly get in the way. And politics…Lord, the politics. Seems like every warmista is a liberal and “denier” a conservative. But we’ve certainly seen climate scientists say one thing in public and another in what they thought would be private conversations. I have never heard climate change to be a “conspiracy,” but I have heard climate change denial to be. So who is in tin foil hat territory exactly?

And then there are gems like these…

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Chairman of the 1992 Earth Summit, Maurice Strong

““No matter if the science of global warming is all phony – climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
-Stephen Schneider

The one from Schneider is the most telling. What prominent scientists, let alone climate scientists, have admonished him for that statement other than so-called “deniers?” Which ones turned their backs on him? They’ve defended him and said it was taken out of context (how?!?!?). They consider him one of their founding fathers. It’s sick,.

It is certainly hard to believe that the current climate change paradigm is a huge and well coordinated conspiracy, involving 10’s of thousands of co-conspirators. That would be practically impossible. No one could pull that off. But it does not take a lot of people to build a false paradigm. A few people can do it in 5 easy steps, if they understand human nature. They do not need thousands of co-conspirators. In fact, the fewer that know the truth, the better.

1. They just need a noble cause and
2. and then they have to exaggerate the threat to that noble cause. This only takes a few well-placed ‘experts’.
3. Then you propose the ‘one and only’ solution, ignoring all others. In the case of climate change, the ‘solution’ has always been carbon mitigation, even though there are many, more efficient things we could do, if the threat was actually real.
4. Demonize your opponents as being against the noble cause.
5. Demand a sacrifice to implement the solution. If the masses comply, you are in control.

In addition, the media, with its mentality of ‘if it bleeds, it leads’, was a very willing accomplice. Academia was also more than willing to write 1,000’s of ambiguous papers on the subject, as long as the grant money continued to increase with each mention of man-made warming, and boy, did it increase.

No…it is not a conspiracy. The world was just ripe for another well-crafted false paradigm; another hobgoblin to keep the populace in line. Our human history is chocked full of this crap. Global warming is just the biggest one to date.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mecken

While conspiracies do happen, the climate change scam is far too big to be one. Rather, it is a confluence of the coinciding agendas of special interest groups.

The alarmist scientists want money, fame and prestige.
The mainstream media want scariest-ever stories.
The cultural-Marxists want control of societal values.
The socialist billionaires want control of the means of production.
The industrial enviro-profiteers (esp. Chinese) want to surf peaking production waves.
The ideologically-driven eco-loons want to “save Gaia” through de-industrialisation.
The neo-Malthusians want to reduce human populations.
The virtue-signallers want other useful idiots to be impressed by their slavish conformance to the meme.

But the big one is Governments. They desperately want a morally-palatable, over-arching and unavoidable big-new-tax-on-everything but especially on the air you breathe. They need it to pay for all the “entitlements” they buy votes with.

IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

An old Chicago proverb applies here, “When all else fails, follow the money”.

“I still don’t know how that happened, though. What were (are) those people thinking?”

Many were/are thinking they are a temporary collection of cells, generated by happenstance events which favored their ancestor’s well being/survival . . and that they will be gone forever one day, soon enough, never being aware again, of anything at all.

How much do you care about what some Klingons somewhere out there went through in the way of some scientific boondoggle . . or whatever? Seriously, as the song says

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that’s all there is my friend
Then lets keep dancing
Lets break out the booze
And have a ball
If that’s all, there is

The very fact that you care so much, about the truth (and about us Klingons ; ) ought to be telling you something . . about what all there is, I suggest.)

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – Winston Churchill

Never so true in these climate wars so far. If the truth is to prevail, then one of two things will have to happen. Either the data in the climate temperature will prove wrong over the next 10-15 years invalidating the alarmist narrative, or a causation will have to be proved one way or the other that human induced CO2 is now the new driver of climate and therefore the whole AGW premise is either valid or not. Which means the average global temperature will have to rise continually in lockstep with human caused CO2 emissions. It is a binary ‘truth’ so say the alarmists. It is as simple as that. And it is a good thing the alarmists have hung their hat on the premise of warming, otherwise they would tell more lies why the cooling would be a result of the increased CO2.

The science is on the side of the skeptics because it really doesn’t have to prove anything. The onus is on the alarmists to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that surplus CO2 in the atmosphere over and above what the natural background would have been without human input, and is solely responsible for the total temperature increase we have seen since 1850. The only tool they have is a model, so which model is correct is based upon correct inputs, which is a ‘wicked’ guess. I suspect only time will tell, and then it will be so easy to see that CO2 is a very negligible factor in the global warming so far, as the skeptics have made that case to be.

If the alarmists just got lucky with a small natural temperature increase since the late 1970’s, while CO2 increased, then why did the temperature record fail the same test from the mid 1940’s to the 70’s when CO2 was increasing? You can’t have your cake and eat it to. But the damage done to Science over a very short time scale of 25-30 years may be irreparably damaged for decades to come. However, IMO, it will turn out that increased CO2 makes the planet more sustainable in the biosphere and therefore better able to cope with an increased population of 7-8 billion people. If it cools significantly, then we are at risk of crop failure in the northern hemisphere which would be truly catastrophic. No one talks about this, which is very unfortunate because we can always accommodate and adapt to some warming, not so much for a cooling.

One thing is absolutely certain, the evidence presented so far by the alarmists would not pass the threshold for a judiciary under the rule of law to rule on in their favour.

It is sad to point this out, but Mother Theresa was about as qualified for a Nobel as Gore, and probably harmed more people. This was a woman who provided aspirin to terminal cancer patients when her organization could afford morphine or other effective anesthetics, who was on friendly terms with American mobsters. Christopher Hitchins was just one of many critics who found her less than admirable:

I’m pleased you mentioned Theresa as less than a saint as Hitchens pointed out.

Nelson Mandela was also an unrepentant Communist terrorist who ordered hundreds killed in the racist South African genocide against the white minority.

The Left always lauds its thugs with international accolades. The Nobel Prizes in everything except hard science have always been about Swedish Far Leftist patting other Collectivist robbers on the back.

The Nobels, just like other Leftist institutions like the EU and UN are worthless and should be abolished.

Sorry.. I am a white guy that visited his jail cell and read up on his life. You and I should be appreciative of the fact that change happened in South Africa, without Syrian or Libyian or Somalian type of blood bath. That was because of Nelson Mandela. He is truly one of the greats and deserving of the Nobel award.

Institutional fake science is not what the likes of Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, John Wallis, John Evelyn, Robert Hooke, Christopher Wren and William Petty had in mind.

Nullus in verba?

More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.

Fret…maybe I’m missing something here, but Forrest wasn’t saying that you were looking for something. I presume he was merely throwing out a hat tip to the Star Wars line: These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. That is, essentially agreeing with you. Just like if I had said, “Pay no attention to the temperatures behind the curtain,” as a way of summarizing Karl et al.

. . . If the truth is to prevail, then one of two things will have to happen. Either the data in the climate temperature will prove wrong over the next 10-15 years invalidating the alarmist narrative, or a causation will have to be proved one way or the other that human induced CO2 is now the new driver of climate and therefore the whole AGW premise is either valid or not. . .

A third thing might nip the hoax in the bud: If President Trump can resist the liberals in his administration (and his family) and stick to his guns by pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement and the UN Climate agencies, and by cutting the US Government gravy train to the self-styled ‘climate scientists’, you might well see interest in promoting ‘climate change’ dry up faster than you can say “Your grant his expired, and will not be renewed.”

– He was elected for an international award, whilst a court case was going on in the background.
– He published a large amount of information noisily in public, and bits of it were subsequently found not to be fully fact-checked.
– A Russian political appointee and Putin supporter temorarily disagreed with the material.

Wowee, major stuff. Unheard of. Unthinkable that a US president-elect would ever behave like that.

And to cap it all: the work had been praised in the retiring speech of the president of a major scientific organisation. Disgraceful.

Interesting essay, but not new news. UNFCCC was from the beginning a progressive political construct. IPCC is a creature thereof. Figueres was clear about its ultimate objective, as were Wirth and Edenhofer. Actual climate science never mattered. It was only a facade to support a preordained political conclusion; those scientists who played along were (to now, times are changing) richly rewarded.
But that ship has hit the rocks of reality and is foundering. Trump’s election is but one consequence. Yesterday’s March for Science protests another. If the climate science is settled, we don’t need to spend more on it and can build a wall instead with the funds. If it isn’t, then we can fire (no more grants) all the incompetent ‘played along’ climate scientists who said it was. Either way, the marchers lose.

It’s not about the science. This is what the skeptics don’t get. The reason the skeptics aren’t making any headway is because catastrophic warming is a politically expedient theory. Look around: there is MASSIVE PR behind catastrophic warming. Note: not massive science, massive PR, otherwise known as propaganda.

Skeptics (especially Tim Ball) promote the idea that CAGW is a green-communist plot. No. It’s more of an elite / establishment plot. Follow the money. Billionaire foundations fund the green movement. The elites are not communists.

The Communist elite were of course not really communists. The nomenklatura in communist societies were just like the medieval aristocracy, ie ten percent living high on the hog on the backs of the subjugated 90%.

I think the “fake communism” aspect is where many, including climate meltdown skeptics, are somewhat . . clumsy in their treatment. Youngin’s don’t have that “Of course not real communism” auto-play subtext going in their heads. The rhetoric of communism is alluring, and I agree we do well to get that “fake communism” addendum into the discussion as a matter of course, mark4asp . . thanks for speaking up here.

Looks like Bill Nye is using his “star power” appeal to millennials during his Disney show days and his $5 Million investment in Rayton Solar (Santa Monica, CA) to carry the torch of fraud when Al Gore hands it to him. $5 Million is a lot less than the $535 Million Solyndra got with Obama’s help, but might end much the same.

“In 2005 Brian May or Lord May (another undeserving award), President of the Royal Society”

Sorry, that’s either Brian May, or Robert May. Robert ‘Bob’ May is Lord May of Oxford and president of the Royal Society. Brian May is guitarist with Queen, but is also a PhD in Physics. Anyhow, your post is in error over this point, and the assertion that the ‘award’ was undeserved looks a little churlish, ill considered and perhaps also in error. Check it all out on Wikipedia.

Yes. Different persons!
I much think that UCL needed a contribution funding “Bump” and hatched a plan to give Brian a Ph.D. in astronomy, which he had been working on in the early ’70s prior to the band’s success, so as to get that “££££” bump. That does not say that he is not deserving, just that “political” currents are at play and the UCL Board say an easy meal ticket.

The pal-reviewed papers spewed in such profusion by the professional liars of consensus “climate change research” are worse than worthless GIGO, while every one of Bell’s studies is a model of the scientific method.

chimp: tim ball didn’t disprove ANY of it himself. his whole career was just four papers, all on very local issues, none of which even tried to tackle any of the big debates taking place in the field of AGW.

crackers345,
Why are you bothering with reading and commenting in a blog if it is so plebian and uninfluential? I note that you don’t follow the conventions of capitalization. It has been my experience that the practice is one followed by liberal “rebels without a cause” who consider themselves so important that they can flaunt convention. Or is the practice similar to those who get a tattoo in order to draw attention to themselves because they have nothing else to offer to distinguish themselves?

Well, Crackers, if you actually read the scientific papers on the subject, you won’t find much of anything that directly supports the idea of catastrophic climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases. There are a ton of papers with a lot of words like ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘if-then’, ‘may’, ‘possible’, and so on. My favorites are those papers that directly contradict the theory of AGW, but conclude, against all reasoning, that their findings do not contradict the theory of AGW, and that their is some other reason for their findings, but they will need more money to understand it.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerous to the civilized world.

No…the science does not support the alarmism. It never has. The science is very weak and pretty conservative. The alarmism comes from outside the peer-reviewed papers for the most part. It comes in press releases, the media and eco-activists exaggerating what the scientists say. It comes in the Summary for Policy Makers from the IPCC, that spins what the body of the report actually says. It comes in the demonizing of skeptical scientists by pundits, actors, reporters and left wing billionaires. It comes in blogs and editorials!

The science doesn’t matter. The atmosphere can stop warming as the concentration of CO2 increases more than ever. It doesn’t matter. Antarctica can gain ice when the theory says it should be melting. It doesn’t matter. Sea level rise can remain constant or even slow down when the theory says it should be accelerating rapidly. It doesn’t matter. There can be no trend in severe weather when the theory says it should be increasing. It doesn’t matter. The tropical upper tropospheric hot spot, one of the prime signatures of man-made global warming, can be completely absent. It doesn’t matter. The atmosphere can warm at a third of the rate predicted by the models. It doesn’t matter. Natural climate change theory?
It doesn’t matter. Every bit of evidence from the history of this planet indicates that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant controller of atmospheric temperature. But that doesn’t matter either.

The theory has already been ‘disproved’ by nature itself, and well documented in the scientific literature. It doesn’t matter!

Prof. Tim Ball is fighting this battle where the battle is being waged; in public opinion. That is where we find Bill Nye, Al Gore, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and so on. They are not proving their positions in the scientific journals. (No warmist ever has!) They are spouting off in the public eye with name calling and appeals to authority. Prof. Ball is trying to catch the public eye with science and rationality.

Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
Date: Dec. 3, 2003
WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032003

Ding, Dong – The Godfather Of Global Warming Is Dead
Paris, COP21 Climate Summit – One of the most dangerous men of the Twentieth Century has just died: and the weird thing is, hardly anyone noticed.
In his 2000 autobiography Where Are We Going? he projected that by 2031 two thirds of the world’s population might have been wiped out. This, he chillingly described as:
“A glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”
See: it’s perfectly OK to fantasize about the deaths of maybe 5 billion people – as long as you show at the end that you really care: you’re thinking about the future of humanity.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/ding-dong-godfather-global-warming-dead/

The most important task for the IPCC has been to make an accurate determination of the climate sensivity of CO2. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of their guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same range. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to decrease the range of their guesses one iota. The IPCC sponsored a plethora of climate models. The large number of models is evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. The large number of different models predicted a wide range of values for today’s average global temperature. But the IPCC sponsored models all have one thing in common. They have all predicted global warming that did not happen. If these climate models were evidence of anything it is at there is something wrong with the AGW conjecture. Others have developed models that do not include any CO2 based warming that do adequately predict today’s global temperatures. Based on the success of these models and all the climate change that happened before the industrial revolution one should conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is cauaed by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. The IPCC fails to recognize such a conclusion for fear of losing their funding. It is all a matter of politics and not science.

One researcher has found that the original calculations of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2, that is the climate sensivity not including any feedback effects, are too great by a factor of more than 20 because the original calculations ignored the fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of 1.2 degrees C, the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 should really be .06 degrees C which is a trivial amount. Then their is the issue of feedbacks. The IPCC assumens that H2O provides a positive feedback and amplifies the effect of CO2 by an average factor of 3 but they are not sure exactly how much. What they have ignored is that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as exemplified that the wet lapse rate is signiicantly lower than the dry lapse rate. Also for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to evolve H2O feedback must be negative so instead amplifying the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of 3, H2O more than likely retards the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of 3 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of .02 degrees C which is rather trivial. Of course the IPCC totally ignores this logic for fear of losing their funding. It is all a matter of politics and not science.

The AGW conjecture depends on the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect attributed to trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. But the reality is that such a greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or any where in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction which renders the entire AGW conjecture as science fiction. Of course the IPCC will not recognize such for fear of losing their funding. It is all a matter of politics and not science.

It’s quite amusing, but also ineffably sad, how the “canonical” three degrees C per doubling was determined.

Two WAGs existed, one of 2.0 degrees and another (Hansen’s) of 4.0 degrees. So the boffins that were average the two at 3.0, and assumed a “reasonable” margin of error of 0.5 degrees. Hence, the still not improved upon range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, derived without any reference to reality as scientifically observed, yet considered good enough basis for the ruination of industrial society.

Thank you for adding this piece of information.. It has all been more a matter of politics rather than science. After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has not been able to do any better than to average two WAGs.

In fact, actual observations of the climate system since 1979 have shown that real ECS, if the concept even be remotely valid, lies in the range of 0.0 to 2.0 degrees C, with the best estimate of central value around 1.6 degrees C. That implies a slight positive net feedback, about which I’m dubious. Direct ECS without feedbacks and in lab conditions rather than the complex actual climate system is about 1.2 degrees C.

IMO net feedbacks are more liable to be negative than positive.

But IPCC needs ECS above 2.0 in order to be scary, so the plainly non-physical model runs are left in.

Chimp: As I pointed out, the calculations are too great by more than a factor of 20 because of the fact that doubling of CO2 will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate. These calculations also pertain to a radiant greenhouse effect that has yet to be observed on Earth or anywhere in the solar system for that matter. The surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees C warmer because of the atmosphere because of a convective greenhouse effect which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the thickness of the atmosphere, and gravity. The convective greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the LWIR properties of any of the gasses in the atmosphere and accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. If CO2 really affected climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

I suspect that the world’s scientific societies have a standard practice of calling for volunteers when a job needs doing, such as to serve on a committee to write a report. If I’m right, then those societies asked for volunteers to serve on committees to examine the CAGW question, and those who volunteered were those who felt strongly about the matter—i.e., alarmists. That’s what I suspect happened in the AGU & the APS. If so, those societies were and are naive about zealotry (or their leaderships were machiavellian warmists).

If the CEO of the AGU were called before a Congressional committee in the Hillary Administration, and asked, “How many legal citizens would you have killed to satisfy the UN’s carbon reduction target?” she would give a number. When pressed about the origin of the number, she would say, “I Am The Messenger Of God, Infidel!”

R Knights wrote:
“If I’m right, then those societies asked for volunteers to serve on committees to examine the CAGW question, and those who volunteered were those who felt strongly about the matter—i.e., alarmists.”

why wouldn’t those with strong feelings in the other direction volunteer?

From my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” [2008] — The “Science of Climate Change” has turned into a political satire of “Global Warming & Carbon Credits” in tune with this the “Science of Climate Change” moved from a scientific body, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), into an elected political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and as a result the scientific community and the media along with political community started thinking locally and acting globally. In this process the major casualty is the health of life forms on the Earth, more particularly in developing countries, most of which are located in “warm” tropics.

In part-II [2010] of the same book — “It has come to our attention that refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and the date for the disappearance of Himalayan Glaciers. R. K. Pachauri, the head of IPCC, whose integrity was questioned by London Telegraph, said that the acceptance of the error “only strengthened the credibility of the global body”. Pachauri has previously dismissed criticism of Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. Just few days back Al Gore admitted similarly a mistake of his own observation that “the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years” is not based on science but based on “assumed” information like that of IPCC’s.

In fact, I myself questioned the IPCC’s observation on retreating of Himalayan glaciers in my counter to an editorial in Down To Earth [in which I also pointed out Al Gore’s media PR to get Noble Prize], which supposed to be published but Editor of the Down To Earth informed me saying that instead of this article they would, are publishing my comments on Polavaram Project — it was published – because just before going to print, Noble Prize was announced to IPCC & Al Gore.

IPCC and Al Gore have not returned the Noble Prize even after accepting the mistakes of poor quality assessments on ice and glaciers melts.

The eco-villain in The Bond movie “Quantum of solace” was Named Maurice Green in the original script (written by a Canadian writer), But was changed to Dominiqe Green in the movie. I wonder if pepole in general understand how close to reality the plot of the movie is.

United Nations is a fundamentally flawed in many ways. We are now seeing the results.
Unable to fix the real problems of today they attempt to prevent imaginary problems of tomorrow.

I suggest splitting United Nations. Keep what is clearly in line with its charter – Article 1.1
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

Everything else should be left to survive on its own – just like all other political, idealistic or activist non-governmental organizations.

«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

“The Utopian attempt to realize an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands a strong centralized rule of a few, and which is therefore likely to lead to a dictatorship.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

From my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” [2008] — The “Science of Climate Change” has turned into a political satire of “Global Warming & Carbon Credits” in tune with this the “Science of Climate Change” moved from a scientific body, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), into an elected political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and as a result the scientific community and the media along with political community started thinking locally and acting globally. In this process the major casualty is the health of life forms on the Earth, more particularly in developing countries, most of which are located in “warm” tropics.
In part-II [2010] of the same book — “It has come to our attention that refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and the date for the disappearance of Himalayan Glaciers. R. K. Pachauri, the head of IPCC, whose integrity was questioned by London Telegraph, said that the acceptance of the error “only strengthened the credibility of the global body”. Pachauri has previously dismissed criticism of Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. Just few days back Al Gore admitted similarly a mistake of his own observation that “the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years” is not based on science but based on “assumed” information like that of IPCC’s.
In fact, I myself questioned the IPCC’s observation on retreating of Himalayan glaciers in my counter to an editorial in Down To Earth [in which I also pointed out Al Gore’s media PR to get Noble Prize], which supposed to be published but Editor of the Down To Earth informed me saying that instead of this article they would, are publishing my comments on Polavaram Project — it was published – because just before going to print, Noble Prize was announced to IPCC & Al Gore.
IPCC and Al Gore have not returned the Noble Prize even after accepting the mistakes of poor quality assessments on ice and glaciers melts.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

In 2014 a study of 2181 Himalayan Glaciers from 200-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding [this was also informed to Indian Parliament by the minister of forests & environment and climate change after his return from Paris meet in December 2015]. Heavy snowfall recording was reported in the last two years in Himalayan zone. Gongotri which started receding by 20 m/yr due to a fault zone is now reduced to 7 m/yr — recovering.

I’ve tried reading this post both in Chrome and Microsoft Edge and can’t read more than a few lines without it bouncing to the top or bottom of the page. Very annoying. This seems to be the only site I frequently visit where this happens. Anybody know what is causing this? Happened 4 times while writing this short post.

Paul,
I’ve encountered more problems with this site than any other I visit. Edge, which I’m currently using, seems better than Explorer or Firefox. However, last night I was experiencing problems with highlighting text to cut and copy. I was also getting some mysterious audio cropping up. It seems to help to close the browser and re-open it.

As rebuttals to the CAGW science, Maurice Strong as founder of the movement, a high school dropout from the Canadian prairies, lifelong communist, doesn’t get mention enough. Indeed you will never see MSM or scientific societies, or academic supporters, or proponent politicians ever say his name. That he died quietly not many years ago in China where he had retired, a country he admired throughout his life, was probably a relief to the inside CAGW crowd. Yet if the planned destruction of western civilization, democracy and free enterprise (essentially of the USA, because the rest of the west was already nose-ringed, dehorned and laughing and gamboling on their way to servitude), it would be Maurice Strong’s statue that would be decorating the world’s city centres. Some of Strong’s quotes send tingles down a free man’s spine. His remark that – wasnt it a duty to bring down western civilization? Useful idiots and trolls would be scarcer on such sites as WUWT if they knew who created all this. But that is the essential nature and usefulness of the useful idiot. Let’s see how many show up here today.

Elaine Dewar devotes 20 percent of her book “Cloak of Green” to Maurice [Strong]. She spent five days with him at the UN during which time he liked the UN because “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Dewar concluded after the five days that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

By the way, Dewar’ book is interesting for how it evolved. She started to write a book in praise of Canadian environmentalists like David Suzuki, Elizabeth May, and Maurice Strong but through diligent research discovered that these people were as corrupt as the people they accused and were using the environment as vehicle for a political agenda. One author, Neil Hrab, who followed Strong’s career wrote,

“What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.”

Incidentally, in 1992, the year he chaired the Rio Conference, he was also appointed Chair of Ontario Hydro, the Provincial government agency that controls all power in the Province. I wrote about the damage he did as a warning to all other governments who are considering applying his policies on energy.

The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as a lot as this one. I imply, I do know it was my option to read, however I truly thought youd have one thing attention-grabbing to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you may repair should you werent too busy on the lookout for attention.

Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
Here is an excerpt from an earlier blogposthttp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
which explains how science was corrupted and co opted by Strong and his Agenda 21 program.

“3. Ava says -It looks like the Earth is going to cool down- Why is my teacher and President Obama saying the earth is going to get very hot and the Polar Bears are all going to die unless I walk to school ?
Well Ava – I would have to write a book to explain how so many different people came to be so wrong for so long about so much- sometimes with the best of intentions. Here is a short story telling what happened.

In 1968 a man called Ehrlich published a book called the Population Bomb. He thought the number of people on earth was growing so fast that there soon wouldn’t be enough food to feed everybody, He said in the book.
” In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate”
Some people at the time got very worried and put their guesses about such things as future population growth, food production ,oil supplies, industrial production and mineral reserves into a computer program.. They intended to look at possible future problems and also explore the possibility that the peoples and governments of the earth could agree on a way of running the worlds economy that could be sustainable, that is, go on for a long time. They put all this in a book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972.

A very energetic business man called Maurice Strong who knew a lot of very influential people persuaded the United Nations that, as he himself believed and indeed still strongly believes, this sustainability problem was very serious.The UN and Sweden organized a meeting in 1972 in Stockholm to discus the interaction of humans with the environment. Strong was appointed by his UN friend U Thant , to be the General Secretary of the meeting. Strong, by nature, is very determined and action oriented and he and the conference produced an incredibly detailed 109 point action plan designed to give the UN input and even control over individual Government environmental policies world wide. As one of the actions, the United Nations Environmental Program ( UNEP) was organized in 1973 with Mr Strong himself as Executive Director.
Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong. The people at UNEP still wanted to take global control of the worlds economy. They realized that if they could show that the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive our cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would be able to scare the Governments and people into writing laws giving the UN ( and them) control over the world’s economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.
UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at a place called Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientists said
“Although the observed global-scale warming experienced over the past ~100 years is compatible with model estimates of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, unequivocal, statistically convincing detection of the effects of changing CO2 and trace gas levels on climate is not yet possible. An important problem in the positive identification of a greenhouse gas effect on climate is to explain the medium to long time scale (~decades or more) fluctuations in the past record. Attempts to model such changes have, to date, suffered from a number of deficiencies.”
Ava – In other words they couldn’t prove any effects of man made CO2 on climate.
But whoever wrote the official summary statement and recommendations said:

“As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history. ”
The report made two important recommendations. As a result of one ,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and a second recommendation resulted in a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong himself which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the treaty is to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures”
In other words if the models show there is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act now to stop it. But how good are the computer Models?
The successive five reports of the IPCC in the Summaries for Policymakers written by Government representatives have clamed increasing certainty for the outcomes of their Model based projections of future temperature which is not supported by the Science sections of the reports or the actual data.
Remember the Villach meeting said
“in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history.”
All the models and projections made since 1985 were built in the assumption that CO2 was the main climate change driver- for that and for many other reasons they are in reality useless for forecasting future temperatures.

For the record, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is selected by a committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. Many choices besides Al Gore have been highly controversial, if not dubious. Kissinger and his North Vietnamese negotiating partner, Le Duc Tho, were awarded the Peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War in 1973 -despite the fact that the terms of the agreement didn’t require North Vietnamese troops to leave the territory of South VIetnam. (Knowing this was but a temporary ceasefire, Tho declined the honor. Kissinger tried, but failed, to return his award in 1975 when South Vietnam fell in 1975. Two of the five member committee resigned.)

Yasser Arafat (and Perez and Rabin) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for bring the Middle East closer to peace. In 2000, Arafat turned down a final agreement and launching a campaign of terrorism against Israel.

Obama was awarded a Peace Prize in 2009 merely for getting elected President and not being George W Bush.

So the award to Al Gore and the IPCC was just more of the usual politics.